. 4% Volume
8, number
Faculty
-.
* UNIVERSITY
19
brief
\
torn
OF WATERLOO,
Waterloo,
Friday,
Ontario
November
3, 1967
to .shreds
Secrecy- rejected by
council
c
by Bill Webb Chevron staff
Student council is getting tough about the adminisfration andfaculty bawlking at changes in university government. Monday night at a regular meeting councillors re jetted secrecy of the study committee on university government. Then they raked the faculty ass01 ciation% brief to the committee over the coals. Federation president Steve Ireland was mandated by council to draft a letter to be sent to Cm rnau Batke vice-president, univeti sity development, advising him of council% intention to bring a tape recorder to the next meeting in order to make public the proceedings of the committee; and secondly, conveying to the committee, through Dr. Batke, council’s dissatisfaction with the attitudes and interest shown by com-
mittee members in their task. In addition copies of the faculty brief association to the committee will be distributed to junior faculty members along with a short council critique. A special council meeting Monday night will discuss the result’s of the student committee memb ers’ actions at the meeting Monday afternoon. _ The study committee was formed a year ago to consider briefs __-__--_---_---_--------Page 3 Full text of letter Full text of brief Page 10 Page 79 Editorial _____-_--__-------------and pass on recommendations to the senate on the future goals and structures of the university6 The Federation is represented by Ireland, Stephen Flott, grad history, and Brian Iler, civil 3B,presented
an original brief in May. The one presented by the faculty association Monday is the only other 0~ iginal brief to appear before the committee.
Marathon
debate
Council debated the secrecy of committee meetings and the faculty brief for five hours. They also expressed disappointment with the other members of the committee. Stewart Saxe, arts rep, attacked the brief and the committee on three counts. He was displeased with the committee’s decision to hold allfuture meetings behind closed doors. Finally, he said the faculty association brief was an unacceptable piece of work comparable to Russian toilet paper. Steve Flott, grad history, called the brief unprincipled and said ((its recom\mendations don’t flow
Steward Suxc (lejt) mukcs a point during council’s marathon debate on the faculty brief and the stud-v committee jbr university government. The meeting was moved to the Federation ojji’cc because council was jbrced to leave St. Paul’s re,f&tory at 1 am.
from any philosophy.” He added that the logic was faulty. Brian Iler, engineering rep, agreed with Flott and added that he was “flabbergasted at the quality of the paper” considering the importance of the subject. William Scott, provost for student affairs, agreed with the students and warned them of thetremendous apathy among the committee members toward what they were dealing with. He saidthe Federation brief was “much more carefully drafted? and was tra more logical document? He also wondered at the committee% lack of interest. Council contrasted the 17 briefs prepared by various faculty groups for the Macpherson report at the University of Toronto with the one brief presented here. In light of this, Ireland criticized university vice-president Ted Batke, chairman of the committee, who said the committee now had all the working papers necessary to make a report to the senate. Council~s opinion was that the committee was a sham, and that decisions on recommendations had already been made without student consultation. Ireland also criticized the fatulty and administration for failing to make proper contributions to conferences at other universities. He expressed his concern over the image this university has elsewhere and said, ;&we’re really coming across wishy-washy, because they’re just not saying anything.* Ron Rumm, science rep, suggested a one-day boycott of classes, with an open teach-in on university government to educate students on the importance of the issues at stake. Flott suggested that co un c i 1
stays closed A major move by students for a more democratic university was rebuffed Monday by the university study committee on university government. The three students on the committee asked that all further meetings be opened to the public. The committee voted eight to three with two abstentions to keep the committee closed, The committee met openly at 3 Monday to receive the faculty association brief on university government. At the end of the meeting, two of student representatives, Steve Ireland and Steve Flott moved that all future meetings be opened to the public and the press because there were no lecturers, junior faculty or assistant professors on the committee. Great difficulty was encountered by the students in putting the motion on the floor, since Ted Batke, chairman of the committee, began speaking against the motion before Ireland’s motion was sect onded.
Dean McBryde of science opposed the motion on the grounds that open discussion would inhibit the committee, and George Atkinson of the faculty association stab ed that the members would be prevented from giving true examples of wrongdoing or inefficiency in university government. The question was hurridly put, and only the three students, Steve Ireland, president of the fedem tion of students, Steve Flott, grad history, and Brian Iler, Civil 3B, voted for the openess motion. Eight committee members voted against the motion and three abstained= chairman Batke; provost William Scott who forgot to vote for the students motion; and Lawrence Haworth of the philosophy department who felt that he was not able to vote since he had only recent+ ly been elected to the committee. The committee normally has a membership of 26. Among the 12 members absent were president J. G. Hagey and registrar C.T.
Boyes who were both i& vice presidents Petch and Adlington, Deans Cross (graduate), Minas (arts), Sherbourne (engineering) and Sprott (mathematics) and two members from the board ofgovernors. The open meeting was the second that the committee has held. Faculty, students and staff were welcome. Vice-president for university planning, T. L. Batke commented that with this, the second major brief to be received,” We’ve got all the briefs we need.” Questions on the faculty brief were fielded by its parent, At&nson. Wyn Rees, principal of Renison College, blasted the brief for “fragmentation by narrow-minded departments. Who will discipline the departments.” Ireland also criticized the a-. mount of power put in the hands of the department as did Dean McBryde, -
Dr*. ed that igated demic reports
Hynes of chemistry suggestthis situation could be mitby requiring that all acat departments submit annual to the university.
After 45 minutes of discussion it was decided that sufficientquestioning had taken place. The committee decided that they would meet weekly on Mondays. .An agenda covering topics for future meetings as drawn up by the steering committee was approved. The members will consider membership in the university community, the nature of governing bodies, their composition, related bodies, the substructure, openness in university bodies, and university appointments. It was at this point that the stw dents introduced their motion to open uP the meeting. President Steve Ireland later expressed SU* Prise at Dr. Batke’s agitation at the motion. Notice of motion had been given to the chairman some days previous to the meeting.
publish and distribute its own“open public statement of our deep disenchantment with the committee”. He said it might even be %ecessary to name names” of those committee members council felt were incompetent or disinterested~ even if it meant putting Flott’ s MA degree on the line. ’ He said that since committee members had not yet been sworn to secrecy he felt completely free to report to the public on the meetings. Peter Warrian and Tom Patterson, executive board members, presented a motion calling for council representatives to refuse to participate in closed committee meetings. They also wished to express council’ s frustration with the committee’s work. Former council president, Mike Sheppard, in supporting the motion, reminded council of its obligation to follow last winter’s standing resolution that council not take part in closed meetings. Sheppard agreed with the ideaof a teach-in, but warned of the difficulty in getting students interested enough to make the boycott successful. “It must work tremendously or we’ll have the biggest bloody flop in history,” Ireland warned that even the faculty agreed that “this is an antiintellectual campus,” and that dZthere are not really that many radica.ls.$’
Scott
is cautious
Provost Scott, when asked his views, said it was not his position to ((put out the fire in the woods,” but that he wondered if itwouldnot be possible to attain the council% goals right within the committee by sticking with it. Saxe retorted with %ure Pllbet on Chicken Little every time tool “He warned council that “Big Brother isn’t very far away. 1984 is almost here, in fact it willprobably be here in 1974.” Saxe advised against ill-prepared precipitant action, and suggested council aim for a confrontation with&e %orporate elite” in the university next February. Scott rose to inquire into the IX++ ture of the encounter and of its pupose. “What are you going to do?What are you hoping to -accomplish? Scott’s question could not be answered immediately because the councillors were forced to leave the high emotion in the St. Paul’s refectory at 1 am. The walk down the hill to the Federation building seemed to cool down the councfflors. The discussion there, as the meeting reconvened, was kept at a lower pitch. Saxe said the goal of the l‘quiet revolution would be the creationof a completely free society. C reative arts board chairman Dave Blaney cautioned council to make a step in the right direction. “Don’t aim too high or students willbe left behind and alienated,” he said.